WMF considering new blocking options

[Beeblebrox]

See link

Apparently they are considering the ability to block more specific actions, including:

• creating pages
• moving pages
• uploading files
• sending thanks messages
• marking edits as minor

Because I am cruel and heartless, I prefer just fully blocking people who are unable to use such abilities in a productive way. But, the WMF apparently thinks this will help fight harassment. Not sure i get the angle there.

[AndyTheGrump]

Will they be able to block people from using en-dashes instead of hyphens?

[No Ledge]

I proposed the partial block on moving pages. This is intended for those who can't stop themselves from making mass moves such as those replacing hyphens with dashes, against consensus or without first getting consensus.


Also proposed a partial block on edit rate for those who can't stop themselves from being unapproved meat bots.

[Beeblebrox]

I proposed the partial block on moving pages. This is intended for those who can't stop themselves from making mass moves such as those replacing hyphens with dashes, against consensus or without first getting consensus.


Also proposed a partial block on edit rate for those who can't stop themselves from being unapproved meat bots.

Well, that explains it a little more clearly than the office did, but I still think we're better off without people who can't control themselves from doing stuff that dumb.

[Midsize Jake]

...This is intended for those who can't stop themselves from making mass moves such as those replacing hyphens with dashes, against consensus or without first getting consensus.

Well, that explains it a little more clearly than the office did, but I still think we're better off without people who can't control themselves from doing stuff that dumb.

You guys don't like dashes? Is that because you're trying to stay within the ASCII character set, or is it more of an aesthetic thing?

As for having more granular blocking options, I guess it's easier for the devs to base them on actions instead of on topic areas or specific pages, but what they really need is the topic areas and specific pages. That way you'll (presumably) have fewer outright bans based on topic-ban violations that might otherwise have been preventable, and fewer pissed-off people as a result. Or am I totally wrong about that?

[AndyTheGrump]

You guys don't like dashes?

I don't like people who create endless drama over the damn things. Which is why I asked whether people could be blocked from messing around with them. I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously.

Just as a personal opinion, having multiple similar-looking punctuation marks seems sub-optimal in a written language, particularly when the majority of those writing in the language almost certainly don't know all the rules regarding which is appropriate where. Not something I'm going to the barricades over though....

[Beeblebrox]

I've upset a few people with my loud declarations of "nobody cares" in the "small horizontal line punctuation mark wars" of old. Someone got really bent out of shape when I posted an actual photograph of a dead horse in one discussion. Good times.

[Moral Hazard]

You guys don't like dashes?

I don't like people who create endless drama over the damn things. Which is why I asked whether people could be blocked from messing around with them. I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously.

Just as a personal opinion, having multiple similar-looking punctuation marks seems sub-optimal in a written language, particularly when the majority of those writing in the language almost certainly don't know all the rules regarding which is appropriate where. Not something I'm going to the barricades over though....

Oh, you hypocrites, who complain that somebody has a hyphen (T-H-L) in his eye, when you have an em dash (T-H-L) in your eye!

If your en dash (T-H-L) offends you, then pluck it out!

[Osborne]

As for having more granular blocking options, I guess it's easier for the devs to base them on actions instead of on topic areas or specific pages, but what they really need is the topic areas and specific pages. That way you'll (presumably) have fewer outright bans based on topic-ban violations that might otherwise have been preventable, and fewer pissed-off people as a result. Or am I totally wrong about that?

This, exactly. The closest thing to "topic areas" is categories. Categories change, that raises questions of whether the block should change accordingly. This question couldn't be answered, thus category blocks - a long-time requested feature - is not coming. It's not simple enough for anybody to touch it.

[No Ledge]

Per Wikipedia:Partial blocks (T-H-L) an editor can be blocked from editing up to ten specified specific pages, or from all pages in a specified namespace.

[watis]

I proposed the partial block on moving pages. This is intended for those who can't stop themselves from making mass moves such as those replacing hyphens with dashes, against consensus or without first getting consensus.

The usual suspects for mass-MOS-moves are currently harrassing one of the site's better angels because she dared to close an RM in the direction it had overwhelming consensus for, which is to say, not the direction they wanted.

[Trismic]

Why not try out blocking actions such as deleting pages, protecting pages, and blocking editors?

Such an approach may well address the problem Kudpung has pointed out in regards to the stigma of desysopping, since simply blocking or otherwise selectively removing admin-specific tools without removal from the admin user group would technically allow admins to remain admins.

[No Ledge]

Why not try out blocking actions such as deleting pages, protecting pages, and blocking editors?

Such an approach may well address the problem Kudpung has pointed out in regards to the stigma of desysopping, since simply blocking or otherwise selectively removing admin-specific tools without removal from the admin user group would technically allow admins to remain admins.

I suggested creating a new user group "Block-restricted administrators" as an option that could be considered in the RexxS case. Would still carry some stigma though.

[Zoloft]

Beeblebrox's dashes in the opening post annoyed me — used BBCode to make a proper bulleted list.

[Moral Hazard]

Beeblebrox's dashes in the opening post annoyed me — used BBCode to make a proper bulleted list.

Beautiful: Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

See link

Apparently they are considering the ability to block more specific actions, including:

• creating pages
• moving pages
• uploading files
• sending thanks messages
• marking edits as minor

[Giraffe Stapler]

The idea that one can be a desirable member of the project but need to restrained from performing the basic functions of the project is interesting. I need to think about this one. My knee-jerk reaction is to say if they can't be trusted not to do things that the community has told them to stop doing, they should just be given the heave-ho.

[AndyTheGrump]

The idea that one can be a desirable member of the project but need to restrained from performing the basic functions of the project is interesting. I need to think about this one. My knee-jerk reaction is to say if they can't be trusted not to do things that the community has told them to stop doing, they should just be given the heave-ho.

This.

[Vigilant]

"Don't make me count ... 1 .... 2 .... ..... 2 1/2 ..... 2 3/4 ..... are you listening to me?! .... 2 7/8 ...."

[Beeblebrox]

That pretty much sums up how I feel about it.
If you're an editor, you need to be able to be trusted to respect consensus even when you do not agree with it. This includes abiding by a topic ban without needing to be technically restricted from violating it.

If you're an admin, you need to be able to be trusted with the entire admin toolset. An admin who cannot issue a block is pretty useless.

[Midsize Jake]

The idea that one can be a desirable member of the project but need to restrained from performing the basic functions of the project is interesting. I need to think about this one. My knee-jerk reaction is to say if they can't be trusted not to do things that the community has told them to stop doing, they should just be given the heave-ho.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree too, but as far as non-admins are concerned... over the course of the last 20 years, haven't we seen a bunch of instances where otherwise-tolerable (or even somewhat-talented) writers, typo-fixers and what-not get completely obsessed over some inconsistency or incorrect-seeming thing involving article titles, redirects, etc., and then just go completely off the rails with it? I mean, the obvious example would be User:Neelix (T-C-L) and his freakish obsession with female breast euphemism redirects, and AFAIK the most recent example (i.e., the one everyone is probably thinking about now) would be User:Geo Swan (T-C-L) and his objectionable use of the "Thanks" feature, but there are definitely quite a few others.

And while I really hate to put it this way, in more general terms we've also seen how Wikipedia particularly attracts people with mild (or not-so-mild) OCD, as well as high-functioning autism sufferers, perhaps because it offers them a substitute for IRL socialization that also includes a mild form of intellectual stimulation... In other words, people who are more likely than most to exhibit this sort of "feature-abuse" behavior. Sometimes such people can't really control their impulses in this regard, but those impulses can often be very specific. Still, there's a good argument to be made that if they couldn't obsess over something involving a basic wiki function/feature, they'd just obsess over something that didn't, but I guess I don't see this as a reason not to implement these sorts of "granular" function-based blocks, especially if a traditional "you're outta here" block or site-ban is the alternative.

[Poetlister]

If you're an admin, you need to be able to be trusted with the entire admin toolset. An admin who cannot issue a block is pretty useless.

That doesn't stop the creation of other types of user who have a limited range of powers. The software on ENWP already allows several of these; for example -revi (T-C-L) is edit filter manager, account creator, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor. I think that on most sites only admins have these powers.

[Hemiauchenia]

If you're an admin, you need to be able to be trusted with the entire admin toolset. An admin who cannot issue a block is pretty useless.

That doesn't stop the creation of other types of user who have a limited range of powers. The software on ENWP already allows several of these; for example -revi (T-C-L) is edit filter manager, account creator, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor. I think that on most sites only admins have these powers.

Rollback functionality is something that can easily be gained by installing Twinkle, which can be done by any autoconfirmed user.

[Giraffe Stapler]

And while I really hate to put it this way, in more general terms we've also seen how Wikipedia particularly attracts people with mild (or not-so-mild) OCD, as well as high-functioning autism sufferers, perhaps because it offers them a substitute for IRL socialization that also includes a mild form of intellectual stimulation... In other words, people who are more likely than most to exhibit this sort of "feature-abuse" behavior. Sometimes such people can't really control their impulses in this regard, but those impulses can often be very specific. Still, there's a good argument to be made that if they couldn't obsess over something involving a basic wiki function/feature, they'd just obsess over something that didn't, but I guess I don't see this as a reason not to implement these sorts of "granular" function-based blocks, especially if a traditional "you're outta here" block or site-ban is the alternative.

I am considering exactly that proposition - if someone has a condition that makes them extra prone to doing some of these things, does that mean they can't otherwise be useful? You give Geo Swan and Neelix as examples and I have to say that those are two people who the project is better off without.

I saw an ANI discussion regarding Neutralhomer (T-C-L) the other day and I asked myself once again why people can't see that he's just a massive timesink. Just indef the guy already (and don't let him back in this time). Don't try to figure out which combination of partial blocks is going to solve the problem, because he is the problem. I fear that's the case for most of the people that these granular blocks will be applied to, It will just be delaying the inevitable.

[Beeblebrox]

If you're an admin, you need to be able to be trusted with the entire admin toolset. An admin who cannot issue a block is pretty useless.

That doesn't stop the creation of other types of user who have a limited range of powers. The software on ENWP already allows several of these; for example -revi (T-C-L) is edit filter manager, account creator, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor. I think that on most sites only admins have these powers.

Those are unbundled rights because it isn't felt one needs to be an administrator to have them. Template editor in particular was specifically created for non-admins. I first became aware of our old friend Kumioko when he was asking for edits to protected templates and was basically getting ignored because most admins didn't know if what he was asking for was a good idea or not. He actually had a point for once and the new user group was created to fill that gap. (The irony of course being that he was unable to acquire the permission himself, and that was probably the genesis of his eventual transition to a full-on "problem user.")

Admins are expected to be able to be trusted with blocking and deleting. Each require an equal level of good judgement to be used to well, as they both have potential for abuse. I struggle to think of an instance where an admin was desysopped where the use of either the block or delete functions was not a core issue.

[Emptyeye]

I struggle to think of an instance where an admin was desysopped where the use of either the block or delete functions was not a core issue.

Portals came to mind immediately. That was because I had legitimately forgotten about Finding of Fact 8 ("BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals"), though I note several arbs, Beeblebrox included, opposed the finding for various reasons (Mainly amounting to "The deletions were technically involved, but there's no evidence they were wrong on the merits, and that's frankly the least of the issues here--even people on the opposite 'side'* acknowledge there was nothing wrong with the actual decisions/use of tools").

I also note that that was one of the more controversial desysops in recent memory, even moreso than RexxS's where some people viewed it as almost inevitable from the time he was sysoped. I'll hold my tongue on saying anything more about it.

*Yes, yes, I know, "Don't divide people into 'sides'", but there wouldn't have been a case if people hadn't divided themselves into sides there.

[Beeblebrox]

I struggle to think of an instance where an admin was desysopped where the use of either the block or delete functions was not a core issue.

Portals came to mind immediately. That was because I had legitimately forgotten about Finding of Fact 8 ("BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals"), though I note several arbs, Beeblebrox included, opposed the finding for various reasons (Mainly amounting to "The deletions were technically involved, but there's no evidence they were wrong on the merits, and that's frankly the least of the issues here--even people on the opposite 'side'* acknowledge there was nothing wrong with the actual decisions/use of tools").

Ok that's fair, but in my defense January 2020 was like 6,000 years ago.

[No Ledge]

I proposed the partial block on moving pages. This is intended for those who can't stop themselves from making mass moves such as those replacing hyphens with dashes, against consensus or without first getting consensus.

The usual suspects for mass-MOS-moves are currently harrassing one of the site's better angels because she dared to close an RM in the direction it had overwhelming consensus for, which is to say, not the direction they wanted.

I was having trouble finding what you were talking about, since you didn't link to it. I think, on checking my watchlist, which I don't do all that often, I ran across it. Uggh. I hate to see this trash talk on "my" project. I didn't see this until after it had already closed.

I'm uncomfortable with the forum shopping and revenge posting nature of the OP. While there may be some discussion to be had over the wording in WP:RMNAC this thread is toxic and I'm closing it. link

[Jim]

I hate to see this trash talk on "my" project.

Huh? "Your" project?

If you meant wikipedia then, as far as it's concerned, you're basically a trivially replaceable work-unit, of no real consequence.

If you meant something else then I apologise for misreading you.

[No Ledge]

"My project" is Wikipedia:Requested moves (T-H-L) (that's where the discussion I linked to was happening). Haven't you guys figured that out yet?

The entire Wikipedia project is too big for one person to micro-manage the whole thing by themselves.

[watis]

I was having trouble finding what you were talking about, since you didn't link to it. I think, on checking my watchlist, which I don't do all that often, I ran across it. Uggh. I hate to see this trash talk on "my" project. I didn't see this until after it had already closed.

I'm uncomfortable with the forum shopping and revenge posting nature of the OP. While there may be some discussion to be had over the wording in WP:RMNAC this thread is toxic and I'm closing it. link

Considering how involved you are in the place, I don't think anyone would fault a quick comment. It definitely wasn't the best moment of the people who brought it. I note they still haven't opened a move review.

[No Ledge]

I was having trouble finding what you were talking about, since you didn't link to it. I think, on checking my watchlist, which I don't do all that often, I ran across it. Uggh. I hate to see this trash talk on "my" project. I didn't see this until after it had already closed.

I'm uncomfortable with the forum shopping and revenge posting nature of the OP. While there may be some discussion to be had over the wording in WP:RMNAC this thread is toxic and I'm closing it. link

Considering how involved you are in the place, I don't think anyone would fault a quick comment. It definitely wasn't the best moment of the people who brought it. I note they still haven't opened a move review.

Right, I'd looked at Move Review and didn't see anything interesting. In lieu of a move review, they started an RfC on the manual of style (or should that be the manual-of-style? )

So, what's a reality headset? I suppose a scuba mask is an example of a reality headset.

I think people will get tired of the longer term "virtual reality" and eventually just call them "reality headsets".

Really, what's real about "reality TV"? There's nothing real about being artificially stranded on an island and being required to vote one of your mates off every night. It's virtual-reality television, hyphen optional.